Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ/Blacks and the priesthood

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Criticism

Critics argue that God would not allow His church to ever deny blessings or privileges based on race. They mine quotes made by Latter-day Saint leaders prior to 1978 to portray the church as racist in its doctrines. They also cite passages from LDS scripture that some have used in the past to provide a rationale for the priesthood restrictions. While some critics recognize that Latter-day Saints have become more enlightened, they question the revelatory process that brought about the policy shift. They portray it as a response to social pressure or government threats to remove the church's tax-free status.

Response

It is important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with which LDS members are often confronted. While definitive answers as to why God allowed the ban to happen await further revelation, it is hoped the following observations and references will aid those troubled by this complex and sensitive issue.

The history behind the withholding the priesthood from individuals based on race is described well by Lester Bush in a 1971 article[1] and a 1984 book.[2] The restriction is perhaps better understood as a series of administrative policy decisions rather than a revealed doctrine. For example, early missionaries to the southern states were instructed not to ordain slaves because it was feared that this might encourage a slave revolt. Some free blacks were given the priesthood such as Elijah Abel, Walker Lewis, William McCary, and Abel's descendents. To justify the restrictions, the contemporary ideas and Biblical interpretations of pro-slavery Christians were borrowed and taught. [For a history of such ideas in American Christian thought generally, see H. Shelton Smith, In His Image, But…Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910.[3]]

The priesthood ban became more comprehensive under Brigham Young's presidency. Later, George Q. Cannon and others concluded that the ban had a revelatory basis. LDS scriptures were used as proof-texts to support this position. B. H. Roberts speculated, based on the Book of Abraham, that the curse of Cain had continued through Ham's descendents and Joseph Fielding Smith opined that blacks may have been less valiant (but not neutral! [4]) in the pre-mortal conflict between God and Satan.

Understanding pre-1978 statements

Critics frequently parade statements and justifications of the ban by past General Authorities that are racist by today's standards. While these have not been officially renounced, there is no obligation for current members to accept such sentiments as the "word of the Lord." Bruce R. McConkie expressed it this way:

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things… All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles. [5]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide reasons for the ban. The reasons they gave were not accurate:

... It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that...The lesson I’ve drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it
... I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking
...Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.[6]

LDS scriptures revisited

Some contend that even though the doctrinal impact of pre-1978 statements have been greatly diminished, the LDS scriptures still retain the passages which were used for proof-texts for the ban and hence can't be easily dismissed. A parallel can be drawn between Protestant denominations that have historically reversed their viewpoint on slavery and a modified LDS understanding of the priesthood ban. Through more careful scripture reading and attention to scientific studies, many Protestants have come to differ with previous 'folk' interpretations of Bible passages. A similar rethinking of passages unique to the LDS scriptures, such as Abraham 1:26-27 and Abraham 3:22-23 can easily be made if one shelves erroneous preconceptions. Sociologist Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address:

[W]e see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.[7]

Although critics frequently cite some Book of Mormon passages as being racist, it does not appear to have been used in a justification for the ban. They often cite Book of Mormon passages like 2 Nephi 5:21-25 and Alma 3:6-10 while ignoring the more representative 2 Nephi 26:33. John A. Tvedtnes [8]shows the Book of Mormon distinguishes between the curse and the mark. On the curse he writes "the Lamanites, as a result of their consistent rebellion against God and the hardness of their hearts were cursed by being cut off from the presence of God." Rather than concentrating on a few negative passages written by the political and cultural enemies of the Lamanites, the entire message of the Book of Mormon needs to be considered.

Richard L. Bushman, author of the definitive biography of Joseph Smith writes:

But the fact that these wild people [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." (Alma 23:18) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain. [9]

Line upon line

Before introducing the historical context behind the 1978 revelation ending the ban, it is worth reviewing the principles upon which revelation is received. The process of revelation is the process by which our will becomes attuned to the will of our Father in Heaven. It is NOT a process whereby we alter the will of God to suit our own purposes. The fundamentals of revelation are:

  1. It is a process primarily of "man inquires and then God inspires." In other words, we must seek guidance before we receive inspiration. God will generally not violate the agency of man and come upon him and say "you have no choice, I want you to do the following." Rather, he usually responds to our individual efforts to draw near to him, and as we do so, he will guide us more and more.
  2. God works with us according to our weaknesses. If we are unable to “receive” an answer (in the sense that we will act upon it) due to our personal mindset or circumstances, God is essentially unable to communicate it to us (not for any limitation on his part, but due to limitations on ours).
  3. God does not generally (in fact seldom does) use his prophets as "teletype machines" in that he flawlessly gives them a word-for-word handbook of "how-to's". In reality, he requires his prophets to not only inquire, but to inquire with some thought in mind as to the answer itself. They then seek confirmation which the Lord can gently correct or confirm.
  4. God gives us "modern" prophets to help us build upon our understandings and progress as a people.

Viewing revelation as a process often requiring patient preparation helps us understand why the priesthood ban wasn't lifted sooner. Lester Bush points out "three principle factors", while allowing for others, that created obstacles. "[T]hese were the authority of decades of vigorous and unwavering First Presidency endorsement of the policy; a preconceived and highly literalistic reading of several verses in the Pearl of Great Price; and an ambient culture which was indifferent to, if not supportive of, Mormon attitudes toward blacks." [10]

In 1954, after visiting the struggling South African mission, David O. McKay began to consider lifting the ban. In a conversation with Sterling McMurrin, he said "[i]t is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed." [11] This was a departure from a 1949 First Presidency statement, indicating a shift in opinion. Leonard Arrington reports that President McKay formed a special committee of the Twelve that "concluded there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that church membership was not prepared for its reversal." [12] However, David O. McKay felt that only a revelation could end the ban. Sometime between 1968 and his death in 1970 he confided his prayerful attempts to church architect, Richard Jackson, "I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone." [13].

As McKay's health declined, his counselor, Hugh B. Brown attempted to lift the ban as an administrative decision. However, it became even clearer that a century of precedence was difficult to reverse without a revelation, especially when some members and leaders—echoing George Q. Cannon—felt there might be a revelational basis for the policy. As the church expanded its missionary outreach and temple building programs, the prayerful attempts to obtain the will of God intensified. Finally in June 1978, a revelation that "every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" was received and later canonized as Official Declaration 2.

Social pressure?

Critics try to raise doubts about the authenticity of the 1978 revelation by claiming that it was dictated by social or governmental pressure. However social pressure was on the decline after the Civil Rights movement and coordinated protests at BYU athletic events ceased in 1971. The allegation that the LDS church's tax-free status was threatened was addressed by a church spokesman,

We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson [a critic] is seriously mistaken. [14]

Conclusion

Quotations dredged by critics lose much of their shock value when put in the proper historical context. Past church leaders can be viewed as a product of their times, no more racist than many of their American and Christian peers. A mature understanding of the process of revelation creates realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet. As we learn "line upon line" we can forget past statements that are no longer in harmony with current counsel. Even scriptures can be reinterpreted as further light and knowledge is received. We may not be able to determine all the reasons behind the priesthood ban or the Lord's timing for overruling it, but we can see that the criticisms against the church are largely without merit.

Endnotes

  1. [note] Lester E. Bush, Jr., "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8 no. 1 (Spring 1973), 11–68. *
  2. [note] Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss, eds., Neither White nor Black (Midvale, UT: Signature, 1984).*
  3. [note] H. Shelton Smith, In His Image, But…Racism in Southern Religion, 1780–1910 (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131. ISBN 082230273X
  4. [note] Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 1:65.GospeLink
  5. [note] Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God," an address to a Book of Mormon Symposium for Seminary and Institute teachers, Brigham Young University, 18 August 1978.
  6. [note] Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
  7. [note] Armand L. Mauss, "The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics", FAIR Conference 2003 Link 1,Link 2
  8. [note] John Tvedtnes, "The Charge of Racism in the Book of Mormon," (2003 FAIR Conference presentation.)*
  9. [note] Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 99.
  10. [note] Neither White nor Black, 209–10.
  11. [note] Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert. Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 79–80.
  12. [note] Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illnois Press 1998), 183.
  13. [note] David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 104.
  14. [note] Bruce L. Olsen, cited in Salt Lake Tribune on 5 April 2001.

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

FAIR web site

External links

Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Racial_issues_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ/Blacks_and_the_priesthood&oldid=2878"